Mayor at mid-term: How's he doing?

IN 1991, WHEN Ed Rendell won election as mayor by a landslide, his chief political strategist, Neil Oxman, wrote in a memo: "Remember, Ed Rendell has won a huge mandate for change. You can take over everything."

Oxman could have written the same to another client, Michael Nutter, who won his own landslide two years ago last Friday as a wildly popular reformer with no help from labor or any other special-interest groups to succeed John Street.

Rendell, faced with a city on the brink of bankruptcy, charged in, taking on the unions, winning concessions and earning their ire, which didn't derail his future political aspirations.

Street, in his first 12 months, quickly settled his four municipal-union contracts, then did battle with the powerful Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, winning a longer school day and the beginning of a process that made a dent in seniority-based teacher assignments.

Within months of taking office in 1980, Bill Green faced a deficit larger as a percentage of the budget than the one in the most recent crisis. He quickly negotiated tough union contracts and laid off 2,500 workers, including cops and firefighters.

But today, with nearly two years gone in Nutter's term, there has yet to be a long-term contract with any of the four City Hall unions, to say nothing of the teachers.

As a result, the three pillars that are a huge drag on city finances (high pension costs, health care and burdensome work rules) have yet to be resolved, leaving the city's long-term fiscal stability uncertain.

YES, THIS administration has been faced with a severe recession, but it's not the first to face crisis. When Green became mayor, interest rates were 17 percent, unemployment over 10 percent, inflation 14 percent and the federal government was withdrawing from urban America, unlike today, when billions are being funneled into cities. (And Rendell faced a city whose cash flow was measured in days, not months.)

The dire economic consequences that now face the Nutter administration didn't explode into public consciousness until nine months into his first year, although the systemic financial issues facing the city have long been known. But rather than use its huge reservoir of political capital to attack the issues from the outset, the administration seemed more inclined to dance to the celebratory music that greeted his election rather than face the somber music playing in the background.

It's the nature of political capital that it dissipates with time, whether you use it or not, so you might as well use it. Now, almost two years into his term, the question is whether the mayor did enough when he had a full tank and whether there's enough left to propel bold actions in the months ahead.

This is not to say that Nutter hasn't worked hard or achieved successes during these past two years.

He's done a good job of reaching out to suburban political leaders, essential if we are to create a regional approach to our challenges. He's been a statewide leader in the fight against illegal handguns. He displayed bulldog persistence in Harrisburg in fighting for the sales-tax increase. Strongly supported the consolidation of Fairmount Park and the Recreation Department. He's a superb public speaker and adept at spotting a PR opportunity a mile away, has championed a sustainability agenda, appealing to his "creative class" constituency, and had the guts to set high goals for reducing the homicide and school dropout rates.

But as Councilman Frank DiCicco wrote in a recent op-ed, "My primary dissatisfaction lies with an administration that has become mired in correcting its predecessors' sins rather than building Philadelphia's future." DiCicco, like many in Council, was an ardent supporter in Nutter's first year, but few remain in lockstep with the mayor, making significant change harder in the year ahead. The break seems as much about personality as policy - and it's easier to change policy than personality.

WITH TWO years having passed since Nutter's election, his administration appears to be less about bold change and more about process and studies.

It's as if Nutter were president of a university rather than the mayor of a city where good old-fashioned street smarts can be more valuable in getting things done than the theories of those with Ivy League pedigrees the administration seems to pride itself in.

Dissertation assignments are assigned to blue-ribbon groups on key issues like ethics reform, something you'd think Nutter could write in his sleep. Still, more than a year after its formation, his task force has yet to issue its final report, and it's unclear whether it will be real reform or reform lite.

Nutter's task force on tax policy just presented its report to the mayor after nine months of study. Surprise, surprise - it recommended lower taxes and less spending.

Interestingly, though, it put the monkey on the mayor's back by identifying key things he can do without approval of City Council or the state. Time will tell whether he does. He has taken the report under advisement, setting no deadline for action.

There is also a task force on fixing the Board of Revision of Taxes. While the mayor talks about the need to act with urgency, there's more of an air about it of a tortoise race than the Daytona 500.

Very little in this city is more important than fixing this corrosive system. Until a sense of fairness, equity and integrity is assured in the assessment system, enhanced property-tax revenues are off the table and the city forfeits one more weapon in controlling its own fiscal destiny.

Despite the toughness of the times and the tough political posturing - "I am calling on BRT members to resign" and "I am calling on City Council to turn in their cars" - the track record of the past two years reveals timidity at best and inaction at worst on some high-profile issues. And that's to say nothing about major miscalculations when boldness was attempted - as in last year's budget process, which called for the wholesale closing of libraries, a possible fee for trash removal and a 19 percent property tax increase.

This is not to suggest that managing such a diverse city is easy or that other mayors have hit the ball out of the park on some of these issues.

But look at the reality of what his predecessors pulled off in their first two years, aside from negotiating union contracts:

Rendell, like a dog on speed, chased all the developers he could find to urge them to invest in the city, and revamped and improved significant parts of city government, like the fleet-management operation. He was widely credited with restoring hope to a once bleak city.

Within his first two years, Street negotiated deals for two new sports stadiums, resulting in a sports complex that one of the World Series TV announcers called the finest in the nation. He launched his ambitious program of neighborhood revitalization by towing 40,000 abandoned cars. He fought the state over control of the schools, finally negotiating a power-sharing arrangement with the state that created the School Reform Commission and resulted in much more state aid.

WILSON GOODE helped revamp the city skyline by working to do away with the height limit that kept buildings from being higher than Billy Penn, negotiated a deal to keep the Eagles in the city and created the anti-graffitti network that is now the internationally renowned Mural Arts Program.

Green took on the police establishment by installing a more stringent deadly-force policy resulting in fewer citizen deaths, reformed notorious government practices like ending outside jobs in the law department, raised private money to equip cops with new bulletproof vests and restored the city's eligibility for federal housing grants by moving forward on Whitman Park after years of stonewalling by the prior administration.

Yes, each had major troubles: Rendell seemed to lose interest as he started to look elsewhere to feed his political ambitions and stubbornly retained an ineffective police commissioner until forced by several Council members to replace him, resulting in John Timoney coming to Philadelphia. Goode had the MOVE fiasco early in his second year. Street had the Bug and Green chose not to run again, undermining long-term institutional reform.

With virtually two years under his belt, Nutter may be a victim of his own lofty rhetoric and the high expectations he set.

But he looks less like an effective change agent than, to stretch a metaphor, a well-dressed matador in his elaborate costume who enters the arena carrying a sword, flanked by his picador and entourage. He acknowledges the roar of the crowd, basking in their adulation as he gently bows in their direction.

But when a problem emerges, and charges ferociously, this matador uses fancy footwork, waves his red cape and steps aside. He doesn't go for the kill, he draws no blood. The vexatious bull returns to the pen, unharmed, to live another day.

Two years ago, the matador was greeted by rousing cheers, but today, with too many bulls still around, the crowd's cheers are far more muted. Many are looking at each other, whispering, "Where's the beef?"

Phil Goldsmith served as deputy mayor for policy and planning in the Green administration and managing director in the Street administration.